INCREASING CONSUMPTION 49 The Competition Question. Following the World War there was a tremendous demand in the metropolitan press to settle returning soldiers on the land. The Secretary of the Interior sponsored a very large-scale plan to colonize soldiers on agricultural lands in frontier districts. Without entering here into any discussion of the merits or demerits of governmental colonization schemes a very large question-we may well face one phase of the question of placing on the land suddenly a large number of additional farmers. These new farmers would compete with the present farmers. Any competition which increased the production of staple crops, or other crops, faster than demand increased for such crops, would tend to lower prices for such crops. In such cases we would have overproduction or what the Single Tax school prefers to call "under consumption." The effect on the producer is the same. An increase in demand would be necessary to offset the competition of the new farmer, assuming such new farmer actually to be placed on tillable, productive lands. The question of increasing the demand for food products, of increasing their consumption, is a question of more than academic interest. With two-thirds of the people now living in cities and towns, and with their potential buying power in the fields of food products, manufactured goods, amusements, etc., it becomes a matter of practical consideration as to how much they can and ought to spend for their food supply as compared with their other wants. Increasing Consumption.-Under one condition could a system. of "small proprietor" agriculture flourish at the present time in the United States, and that is, there must be an enormous increase in the consumption of agricultural products to offset the increase in production. With the staple crops there is an unknown margin of increase. Cotton, with its hundred by-products, is an example. Any one or more of these products may suddenly flare into worldwide demand. So also with the various uses and by-products of corn, wheat and oats. But clearly more is to be expected from the increase in the consumption of the minor products of the farm, such as milk, cheese, butter, poultry and poultry products, etc. The French peasant, however poor, is said to enjoy his "fowl in the pot." Yet to our city dweller a roast chicken is a luxury. The poultry crop now has about the same value as the wheat crop, but the room for increased consumption here is very vast. But increased consumption seems dependent on either improved quality or lowered price, and lowered price in turn depends on economies in production and marketing. In short, the poultry grower must learn the lesson from the orange grower of California. Milk is of all foods the most ideal-the one perfect "balanced ration." Yet our daily consumption per person is only one-half a glass! When national prohibition arrived, we were spending $5.00 a year for the milk we consumed, and $8.00 a year for the beer we drank! The coming importance of our condensed milk trade is illustrated by the recent figures from our Commerce Reports. The condensed milk exports ran in value at about $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 a year for some years prior to 1915, according to these Commerce Reports. For the year 1915, the value of condensed milk exports was $6,000,000, most of these exports going to Europe. In the year 1918 the condensed milk exports to the one port of Hong-kong amounted to $3,611,500, indicating the tremendous increase in the use of this food by the Chinese. Cheese is a staple article of diet in foreign lands, being in all respects a wholesome and cheap food. Yet our daily consumption of cheese is only one one-hundredth of a pound per person. Condensed milk, fermented milk, and the various forms of milk byproducts suggest the possibility of developing an immense and profitable market here. 9 Tobacco. In tobacco we are spending, according to Harvey W. Wiley, $1,200,000,000 a year. This is twice as much as is spent for butter, condensed milk, and cheese. Some shifting of demand is possible here. In such case, however, the tobacco farmer, would need to shift his production to meet the change in demand. Jam.-Pratt tells us that the English farmers when America and Canada ruined the wheat market for them, turned to more specialized foods. Jam is one. The acreage in fruit trees increased to three hundred thousand acres an increase of sixty-three per cent in thirty years. In America many of the farmers' apples, peaches, pears, etc., rot on the ground. How much jam could, for instance, New York City alone consume? Doctor Howe tells us that New York is supporting commercialized leisure and amusements to the extent of eleven thousand, five hundred saloons, eight hundred dance halls, and six hundred motion picture shows, with an estimated expenditure on the people's part of $100,000,000 a year.10 This merely illustrates the strength of market demand. for those things which the people happen to want or are educated 9 Good Housekeeping, Jan. 1916, p. 92. 10 Howe, Modern City and its Problems, p. 307 (published in 1915). QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT 51 to want by successful advertising. Demand for food products is capable of almost unlimited expansion, provided the food article is low in price, and of standardized grade and quality and pack and the demand is carefully cultivated. The city population is increasing three times as fast as the country population. This table from the census (where every place of fewer than twenty-five hundred inhabitants is considered rural) illustrates this tendency. Increase in Population, Rural and Urban, by Per Cents. The average size of farms for the whole United States shows little if any tendency to decrease. Here are the figures: The size of farms in the old, well-established farming section (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas) shows a gradual increase, as given in the following table: And in four of these six states the rural population showed a decrease in the decade 1900 to 1910, while the urban population in all states in the union showed an increase. Hence we see that the problem of increasing the rural population and reducing the size of the farm is a problem that is not being solved. QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT 1. What according to many, is this Republic's ideal landowning system? 2. State and explain Jefferson's ideal. 3. Is the drift of population back to or away from the land? 4. State in full the arguments for small farms as given by Laing. 5. Give the views of Arthur Young; of John Stuart Mill. 6. State the findings of the Wilson-Wallace Report. 7. State in detail the position of Pratt, especially his comments on Denmark. 8. Give von Engelken's picture of German farming. 9. Describe the situation in Australia; in New Zealand. 10. State the problem confronting the United States. 11. Show relation of size of land holdings to overproduction. Grande Powers. Discuss flexibility of demand. Illustrate. Quote Le 12. Quote G. Harold Powell on the overproduction problem. Show the significance of "savings" rather than "profits." Show the place of advertising in this connection. 13. Cite evidence to show where specialized farming tends to prevail and where diversified farming tends to prevail, 14. What are the usual arguments, from the social standpoint, against the big farm? Quote big farmers on this point. 15. Why is the nature of the rural population of such vast importance to the country as a whole? 16. Compare the sanitary conditions of city and country, as evidenced by the military draft. 17. What economic law will, in the end, determine the size of farms? 18. State the findings of the following "Surveys": Chester County; Nebraska survey. 19. Quote, with comment, the statement in the Weekly News Letter of the Department of Agriculture concerning renting versus buying a farm. 20. Show significance of competition question in agriculture. 21. Would a system of smaller holdings bring in harmful competition? 22. Show possibilities of increased consumption of farm products, particularly milk and milk products, fruit. 23. Cite statistics showing relative rates of increase of city and rural population; of changes in average size of farms. Is the rural population increasing? Is the size of farms getting smaller? QUESTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE TEXT 1. Give an account of the strip system of land holdings in Europe. 2. Is Danish landholding a type of prosperity or lack of prosperity? 3. Should the farmer "specialize" or "diversify"? 4. Would "cheap food," supplied by a so-called peasant class of farmers, be a benefit or a curse to the Republic? 5. What is the fallacy, if any, in Jefferson's views of a rural versus an urban population? 6. What is a correct land policy for the United States? Do we have any land policy at the present time? If so, what is it? REFERENCES 1. JOHNSON, O. R.: "Big Farms or Little Farms-Which?" Farm Life, Nov., 1916. 2. Farming's Future. Editorial, Farm, Stock and Home, Sept. 1, 1916. 3. For conditions in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, Mexico, see publications of International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, Italy, particularly International Review of Agricultural Economics. 4. For brief comment on current conditions and activities in all parts of the world, see the daily Commerce Reports, issued by the Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 5. Many books dealing with the problems of land settlement, closer settlement, size of holdings, etc., have appeared in recent years. Hence the following list deals chiefly with the older publications: YOUNG, ARTHUR, "Travels in France"; "Land Tenure," Cobden Club Essays; KAY, JOSEPH, "Free Trade in Land"; SAGERSON, GEORGE, "History of Land Tenures and Land Classes in Ireland"; PRATT, É. A., "The Transition in Agriculture." APPENDIX Migration from Denmark to the United States, Compared with Similar Migration from the Netherlands and Belgium, showing Relatively High Per Cent of Denmark. Netherlands. Belgium... Danish Migration. Per cent of total population migrated to the United States 6.5 2.0 .6 CHAPTER V LAND TENURE Introductory. Many changes are going on in the United States in respect to tenancy, mortgages, and size of farms. And yet there is very little agreement as to the significance of these changes. This may be illustrated by a few quotations. For instance, at a recent meeting of the New York State Agricultural Society, one prominent gentleman spoke as follows: "The heavy drain upon the country for its best blood to what seemed more attractive life in the city has left many fathers and mothers alone at an age when they were no longer fitted to carry the burden of the farm. Hard work in early life had made the day of retirement to the local town look bright. And the renter took his place. Now the so-called tenant system is in the minds of men a symbol of a degenerated agriculture, and I must confess that it has as a rule been true. The facts are that farm rental is no more degenerate in principle than the ownership of a building by one man and its occupancy by another; the tenant in some way having paid the owner of the building a fair value for its use. We have deplored tenantry and prayed for the day when prosperity would again come to the open country and the owner would become the occupant of the land. I venture a prophecy that the millennium will never come and furthermore that tenantry may increase. Tenantry leaves a bad taste, not because the thing is wrong, but because it has developed through unfortunate causes The system of tenantry is here because the farm as a business will not pay cash for the labor and leave a balance." The speaker is interrupted and interrogated as follows: "I want to ask Mr. Cook one question: Does he think that our descendants will stand for a thing that his ancestors and mine left Europe because of tenantry? Never, as long as we are Americans, will tenantry come into this great and glorious country." Mr. Cook replies: "The trouble is, it is here now. Come out into the country and see how many tenant farmers we have We have tenantry, and we are going to have it, and let us undertake to improve rather than destroy, as we cannot get rid of it." 1 Charles Stelzle, in reviewing the returns of the 1910 census, takes this somewhat cheerful view of the situation: "While the population of the United States as a whole increased 21 per cent during the past ten years, the rural population increased only 11.2 per cent. The increase in the number of farms during the period was 10.9 per cent. The value of the farm property increased 100.5 per cent, but the greater part of this extraordinary increase was in the land itself, the value of which increased Bulletin 47. Proceedings of the Seventy-third Annual Meeting of the N. Y. State Agricultural Society. Albany, 1913, pp. 1265-1268. |